Hello,
I would just like to say the Jerusalem post made a mistake on the name of the author. And others are just repeating the error as above. Its Laurence de Mello not Laurence de Mello Simon.
The original article is here :
Argentine Congress and Simon Wiesenthal Center seek answers on 'Submarine' wreck
Interesting article.
Going back to my original post, I decided to work with info rather than my memory.
German submarine U-869 - Wikipedia
U-869 conducted one World War II war patrol without success. It suffered no casualties to her crew until it was lost on 11 February 1945, with all but one of 56 crew members dead. The surviving crew member, Herbert Guschewski, was not on board, as he became ill just before the patrol. Robert Kurson chronicled the story of U-869's finding in the book Shadow Divers (2004). U-869 had been previously ordered by Karl Dönitz to move her area of operations from the North American coast to the Gibraltar area.... leading to an erroneous historical record that U-869 was sunk near Gibraltar. For many years this attack was assumed to have been her end.
I think I posted a review of Shadow Divers. If not, it's a great book.
Eventually, the team recovered a knife inscribed with "Horenburg", a crew member's name. However, they learned at the U-boat archives that U-869 was supposedly sent to Africa, so this piece of evidence was initially disregarded. A few years later, they found part of the UZO torpedo aiming device, and a spare parts box from the motor room engraved with serial and other identifying numbers. On 31 August 1997 they concluded that the boat they found was U-869.
What the above doesn't state is HOW they obtained that info. I won't recount it all, but 3 men died and one of the world's most experienced divers, John Chatterton, nearly died swimming through the shattered wreck to find anything to ID the sub. They spent years and tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) from their own pockets to dive on and research the sub.
Now drawing from my memory, and I could well be wrong, but not all Type VII and Type IX's were the same, making SOME identification possible without going into the wreck. A shattered, broken wreck in those conditions (I'm not a diver) would have to be very, very difficult to ID without distinguishing marks or serial numbers like the above case. The 3 external things that come to mind are AA guns, if a schorkel were fitted, and any insignia painted on the conning tower. Let's be honest, what are the odds of finding enough of the above to produce an ID?
So why the secrecy? Everyone knows it is a U-boat. The conning tower could tell you that much. Type VII and Type IX's were different, even the shape changed over the war to add more AAA, but the conning tower remains German. So, how is this a "suspected" U-boat? Why hide the report? The gov't doesn't want to admit that it's a u-boat? Um, okay. Or does it know the sub's identity which quickly turns some history on it's ear?
Weird, very weird to hide the report.